A warning: don’t buy Rogue Warrior

A full length review would be late at this point, but we can still get the …

We had requested a review copy of Rogue Warrior before the game came out, and for some reason it was sent to one of my old addresses; it wasn't until the holidays that the copy of the game was recovered. I was able to play the game over the holiday vacation.

A review of the game would be criminally late at this stage, so let this serve as a warning. You may see Rogue Warrior on the shelf, and see that Rebellion as the developer, and Bethesda as the publisher, and think that you respect both of these companies. So do I. But don't let that fool you into a purchase. There is no telling what happened here. The game can be beaten in one sitting—you can actually finish the whole damn thing in around two hours. The voice acting is satirical, and is made up of more expletives than other words. You can sneak up behind the bad guys and kill them, and to allow you to see these stealth kills, the AI mostly stands with its back to you throughout the game.

The graphics are bland, the violence may have been edgy ten years ago, and the voice-acting is simply embarrassing. Yes, Mickey Rourke plays the lead character, and no, he doesn't find any hidden depth in cursing at the bad guys.

If you bought this on consoles, you spent $60 at launch, which means you're paying about $30 per hour. Those two hours are not fun. There is nothing redeeming here, especially when Steam just finished selling dozens of long, engrossing games for less than $10. Even if you're given this for free, don't bother playing it; your time is worth more. If you happen to have a copy of this unopened, just return it. If you see someone looking at it in the store, warn them. Selling this game at full price with a too-short single-player campaign and an anemic multiplayer game should have been a crime.

45 Reader Comments

"Even if you're given this for free, don't both playing it; youre time is worth more"

The first mistake I can understand, "both" is a word at least. The second I cannot. Surely even if the author didn't spell check this, a quick bash through the checker is part of the publishing workflow?

I played this for 15 minutes at the Eurogamer Expo in London (October) and it wasn't that bad. Granted I can't talk about length but the game was fun enough. Would be nice to see a full review rather than and editorial.

Originally posted by stuffe:Surely even if the author didn't spell check this, a quick bash through the checker is part of the publishing workflow?

I like how in critiquing the article you made a grammatical error yourself. There was no question in the sentence and required no question mark. You made a statement and neede a period.

None-the-less, that was a harsh 'review' and it is obviously a terrible game. Thanks for the heads up.

Like I said, I can be more forgiving of grammatical mistakes, especially when the finer points can be argued either way, especially in such informal settings as an internet forum. With spelling however, it is either correct, or wrong.

Originally posted by WolfieZero:Would be nice to see a full review rather than and editorial.

From MetaCritic:

"Completely bankrupt of any value whatsoever." - IGN

"In condemning this game, I can't help but feel like an opportunistic hunter pouncing on the most pathetic zebra in the herd. But Rogue Warrior is a hobbled, wheezing creature stumbling around so far away from its peers that not going for the jugular could be seen as an act of cruelty." - GameSpy

"You have to wonder how something like this makes its way onto shelves as a full-priced product. Though there's some sort of ironic fun to be had by cruising through the short campaign and listening to Mickey Rourke shout obscenities, it's practically impossible to wring $60 of excitement out of this disc." - Giant Bomb

The "best" review there is this one:

"It's not a bad game: it has its moments, it has several gameplay mechanics, and it has its own personality. But, overall, it's just an average game, with nothing we hadn't seen before, and it's extremely short. Not even the multiplayer makes it worthy." - Meristation

A full review of a waste of time would, itself, seem to be a rather large waste of time :-)

Originally posted by WolfieZero:I played this for 15 minutes at the Eurogamer Expo in London (October) and it wasn't that bad. Granted I can't talk about length but the game was fun enough. Would be nice to see a full review rather than and editorial.

I've seen pretty much the same stuff ScottTFrazer already listed, and it seems to me that Ars did all of us a favor by doing it this way.

But then, should anyone be surprised when something is based on Richard Marcinko's need to self-promote himself?

I sort of like the Rogue Warrior books. But after the 2nd or 3rd, you realize he just rehashes the same material over and over, and it's just not worth going for the rest. "Cancelling Czechs" and other witticisms aside, it was an entertaining arm-chair commando read. But, I couldn't see it interpreting into a very good video game. It's no Tom Clancy. I guess this preemptive review just confirms that.

Originally posted by stuffe:"Even if you're given this for free, don't both playing it; youre time is worth more"

The first mistake I can understand, "both" is a word at least. The second I cannot. Surely even if the author didn't spell check this, a quick bash through the checker is part of the publishing workflow?

This warning was clearly too important and time critical to waste time spell checking it.

Originally posted by Kempai Tai:But then, should anyone be surprised when something is based on Richard Marcinko's need to self-promote himself?

I totally agree. I also wouldn't trust a typical geek to review Marcinko Merchandise without letting their own sulky politics bias the rating.

<shrug>... Not sure what politics would have to do with a game review (albeit a very abbreviated and to-the-point one). Personally, I have no idea what Marcinko's political views/stances are. So, I may be missing something in that area.

Originally posted by Lonyo:I'm confused.You're buying this game for $60 on a console, and the suggestion is don't, because Steam (a PC game selling platform), just finished having some sales?

I'm confused. I'm a console gamer, why do I care about a PC thing that's just finished having a sale?

I don't think that was written in a one-or-the-other (consoles or PCs) vein. As I play on both, the comparison made some sense to me - why pay $60 for a sorry game when you could get much better games at a fraction of the price?

DUDE! Why didn't I see this before Friday!!! I got it and it sucked so bad, it really is a shallow game, aside from the funny yet irrelevant cussing, the graphics do suck and the character animations are terrible (watch him climb a ladder)... the violence is cool, but damn, thats all there is... wish i would have seen this sooner...

I totally agree. I also wouldn't trust a typical geek to review Marcinko Merchandise without letting their own sulky politics bias the rating.

I barely know who this guy is, and he has MERCHANDISE?

Does it all consist of nothing but swearing and clumsy violence?

That's pretty much Marcinko's thing, yes. Some people enjoy it (I certainly like his books), and he's interesting enough in person, but I had a feeling that this game would just be a cash-in on his name. Thanks for validating that.

You have to appreciate Ben's efforts to get the word out as soon as possible. If it's THAT bad and he feels THAT compelled to blast out not a review but an immediate warning. To hell with typos, and details, he's trying to make sure no money is put to this game and save you the agony. It must be really THAT bad.

That's the kind of Ars luv I have come to enjoy. That, and the tacos here are delish!

Ben's editor told him to throw in the occasional typo on purpose in order to lure that hard-to-keep grammar nazi demographic. You have to throw them a bone sometimes so they'll feel justified in their existence.